On 22 May 2013 17:52, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All: > > [parent] version 29 replaces Cobertura with Jacoco, the main reasoning from > the folks over at [math] being that Jacoco is very fast compared to > Cobertura. In the case of [math] it's hours vs. minutes. > > The problem is that Jacoco produces bogus results as I recently emailed > about the [io] component. The large portion of the code is reported with 0% > coverage which is completely wrong. This is apparently a known issue due to > the Jacoco use of 'probes' to analyze code which is not compatible with the > use of exceptions. > > If you get the latest from [io] and edit the POM to enable JaCoC, you can > compare both reports in the generated site with 'mvn clean site'. > > Fast and bogus is not better than slow and right. > > I propose we switch [parent] back to Cobertura until a better alternative > is proposed. [math] can decide if it can live with the fast and bad results > provided by Jacoco.
Why not include both as options, so components can choose? I'm currently experimenting with profiles to see if this can be done easily. > Gary > > -- > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second > Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
